United States Office of Ground Water EPA/816-R-99-014n
Environmental and Drinking Water (4601) September 1999
Protection Agency
The Class V Underground Injection
Control Study
Volume 14
Special Drainage Wells
-------
Table of Contents
Page
1. Summary 1
2. Introduction 3
3. Prevalence of Wells 3
4. Wastewater Characteristics and Injection Practices 6
4.1 Injectate Characteristics 6
4.2 Well Characteristics 15
4.3 Operational Practices 19
5. Potential and Documented Damage to USDWs 20
5.1 Injectate Constituent Properties 20
5.2 Observed Impacts 21
6. Best Management Practices 22
7. Current Regulatory Requirements 24
7.1 Federal Programs 24
7.2 State and Local Programs 25
Attachment A: Injectate Quality Data for Special Drainage Wells 27
Attachment B: State and Local Program Descriptions 37
References 44
September 30, 1999
-------
SPECIAL DRAINAGE WELLS
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) conducted a study of Class V
underground injection wells to develop background information the Agency can use to evaluate the risk
that these wells pose to underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) and to determine whether
additional federal regulation is warranted. The final report for this study, which is called the Class V
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Study, consists of 23 volumes and five supporting appendices.
Volume 1 provides an overview of the study methods, the USEPA UIC Program, and general findings.
Volumes 2 through 23 present information summaries for each of the 23 categories of wells that were
studied (Volume 21 covers 2 well categories). This volume, which is Volume 14, covers Class V
special drainage wells.
1. SUMMARY
Special drainage wells are used throughout the country to inject drainage fluids from sources
other than direct precipitation. This is a "catch-all" category, including all drainage wells that are not
agricultural, industrial, or storm water drainage wells. The specific types of wells that fit into this
category are:
• Pump control valve discharge and potable water tank overflow discharge wells;
• Landslide control wells;
• Swimming pool drainage wells; and
• Dewatering wells.
Pump control valve discharges and potable water tank overflows may be drained to the
subsurface on occasion, usually when an emergency overflow or bypass procedure takes place.
Landslide control wells are used to dewater the subsurface in landslide-prone areas. Removing ground
water from sediments decreases the weight of the sediments and increases the resistance to shearing in
the area (USEPA, 1987). Swimming pool drainage wells are used to drain swimming pool water to the
subsurface for seasonal maintenance or special repairs. Dewatering wells are used at construction sites
to lower the water table and keep foundation excavation pits dry (Rahn, 1997). Dewatering wells may
also be used at mining sites, where they are known as "connector wells," to drain water from an upper
aquifer into a lower one to facilitate mining activities. In addition, one dewatering well in Colorado is
used to dispose of brine captured from springs by drawing saline water from the shallow aquifer that
recharges a river and injecting it into a deeper aquifer.
In addition to these four types of wells, USEPA Region 5 staff report the existence of steam
trap wells, which inject steam condensate collected from a system of pipelines at one industrial facility in
East Chicago, Indiana. Although classified as special drainage wells for the purpose of this study, these
steam trap wells are not considered in detail because they only exist at one facility and no specific
information about them is available.
September 30, 1999
-------
Injectate characteristics vary among the types of special drainage wells. The injectate from
pump control valve discharge and potable water tank overflows is expected to meet all drinking water
standards due to the potable nature of the water. The quality of injectate in landslide control wells
depends on the quality of the ground water that is being drained to a deeper level in the subsurface.
The limited amount of available data indicates that swimming pool drainage well injectate contains
coliforms. In addition, the recommended chemical composition of swimming pool water includes total
dissolved solids (TDS) levels above the secondary maximum contaminant level (MCL) for drinking
water. Data show that dewatering well injectate typically contains the following constituents above
primary MCLs or health advisory levels (HALs): turbidity, nitrogen-total ammonia, arsenic, cadmium,
cyanide, lead, molybdenum, nickel, nitrate, and radium 226. Additionally, the following constituents in
dewatering well injectate are typically detected above secondary MCLs: iron, manganese, TDS, and
sulfate. Measured pH level are also below the lower end of the secondary MCL range.
Because special drainage wells do not tend to be located in areas with specific geologic
characteristics (they are typically located wherever the need for a certain type of drainage exists),
generalizations about the injection zone characteristics are very limited. In Florida, where swimming
pool drainage wells and mine dewatering wells are prevalent, the injection zone is typically karst.
Swimming pool water is often injected into aquifers from which the pool water was initially withdrawn,
and the injected water quality is usually not significantly degraded from that in the receiving aquifer. In
some cases, swimming pool drainage wells inject into saline aquifers. Landslide control wells and
dewatering wells inject into deeper aquifers that can accept volumes of fluid from upper aquifers.
No contamination incidents have been reported for pump control valve discharge and potable
water tank overflow discharge wells, landslide control wells, or swimming pool drainage wells. A 1984
study expressed concern over water quality received by the Floridan aquifer when dewatering wells
were operated at several phosphate mining sites. However, no contamination incidents caused by the
use of dewatering wells have been reported.
In general, special drainage wells are not highly vulnerable to spills or illicit discharges. The
extent of any potential contamination caused by dewatering or landslide control wells is highly
dependent upon the characteristics of the construction or mining site or potential landslide location that
is being dewatered. Pump control valves and potable water tanks and swimming pools are not
especially vulnerable to spills or illicit discharges.
According to the state and USEPA Regional survey conducted for this study there are
approximately 1,945 documented special drainage wells and more than 3,750 special drainage wells
estimated to exist in the U.S. The wells are documented in 13 states, although 97 percent are located
in Florida (782) and Indiana (1,102). The trends in constructing and operating special drainage wells
indicate that these numbers are likely to decrease in the future. An alternative type of landslide control
well may replace the type that injects water deeper into the subsurface. This alternative moves water to
the ground surface or to surface water bodies. Swimming pool drainage wells, which are mainly
located in Florida, are associated with older pools and are generally no longer constructed. Many of
the mine dewatering wells associated with phosphate mining in Florida have been closed.
September 30, 1999 1
-------
Special drainage wells are rule authorized in Idaho, Indiana, and Ohio. However, the other
states with the majority of special drainage wells are implementing more specific regulatory programs to
address these wells. Specifically, individual permits are issued in Alaska, Florida, and Oregon, and
general permits for single family swimming pools are issued in Florida. A de facto ban on connector
wells exists in Florida because old wells are terminated and plugged as they are discovered, and new
connector wells are not permitted.
2. INTRODUCTION
The existing UIC regulations define Class V drainage wells as those "used to drain surface
fluids, primarily storm runoff, into a subsurface formation" (40 CFR §146.5). In the 1987 Class V
UIC Report to Congress, USEPA characterized special drainage wells as those used to inject
drainage fluids from sources other than direct precipitation (USEPA, 1987). As described above, the
special drainage well category currently serves as a "catch-all" category, including all drainage wells that
are not agricultural, industrial, or storm water drainage wells.
In USEPA's 7957 Class V UIC Report to Congress, the special drainage well category
included lake level control wells used on occasion to drain lakes to prevent their overflow USEPA
maintained this categorization when conducting the survey and other research for this study However,
upon review of the new information collected on lake level control wells, the Agency has decided that
these wells are better categorized as storm water drainage wells. Therefore, lake level control wells are
addressed in Volume 3 of the Class V Study along with other wells that fit into the storm water
drainage category.
3. PREVALENCE OF WELLS
For this study, data on the number of Class V special drainage wells were collected through a
survey of state and USEPA Regional UIC Programs. The survey methods are summarized in Section 4
of Volume 1 of the Class V Study. Table 1 lists the numbers of Class V special drainage wells in each
state, as determined from this survey, along with descriptions of the wells. The table includes the
documented number and estimated number of wells in each state, along with the source and basis for
any estimate, when noted by the survey respondents. If a state is not listed in Table 1, it means that the
UIC Program responsible for that state indicated in its survey response that it did not have any Class V
special drainage wells.
As shown in this table, there are 1,945 special drainage wells inventoried in 13 states (in Ohio,
state staff reported no documented wells but estimate they may exist). However, some states believe
that the actual number of wells is higher than documented. The total estimated number of special
drainage wells in the nation is more than 3,750.
September 30, 1999
-------
Table 1. Inventory of Special Drainage Wells in the U.S.
State
Documented
Number of
Wlls
Estimated Number of Wells
Number
Source of Estimate and Methodology '
Description of Wells
USEPA Region 1 - None
NH
NR
NR
State experience with underground storage
tank installations.
Construction dewatering wells.
USEPA Region 2 - None
USEPA Region 3
WV
5
NR
N/A
Probably are swimming pool
drainage wells or water
treatment plant backwash
wells.
USEPA Region 4
FL
782
• 1,500
Approximately 1,300 swimming pool
drainage wells in Bade County; 100-200
phosphate mining connector wells.
Connector wells and swimming
pool drainage wells.
USEPA Region 5
IN
OH
1,102
0
NR
1,000
N/A
Based on information on state parks' water
faucet overflow amounts and ground water-
based public water system overflow control
wells. Estimate assumes that nearly all
special drainage wells in OH are associated
with potable drinking water source
overflows.
Drinking water fountain
drainage wells and steam trap
wells.
Wells used to drain potable
drinking water source
overflows.
USEPA Region 6
NM
1
1
This well is permitted but the facility is not
yet operational.
No description provided.
USEPA Region 7 - None
USEPA Region 8
CO
UT
3
2
NR
2
N/A
N/A
No other information provided.
One of the wells is a dewatering
well used to dispose of brine
captured from springs that
discharge into a river.
Mine dewatering and ground
water elevation control wells.
September 30, 1999
-------
Table 1. Inventory of Special Drainage Wells in the U.S. (Continued)
State
Documented
Number of
Wills
Estimated Number of Wells
Number
Source of Estimate and Methodology '
Description of Wells
USEPA Region 9
CA
HI
NV
2
6
2
2
6
2
N/A
N/A
N/A
No description provided.
Potable water tank overflow
drainage wells.
Construction dewatering wells.
USEPA Region 10
AK
ID
OR
WA
2
20
10
8
50
20
>50
8
Best professional judgement.
N/A
Best professional judgement.
N/A
Potable water (pump hose)
overflow and landslide
stabilization wells.
Potable water tank overflow
wells, wells used to drain
irrigation well discharge at
pump startup, standpipe/drain
overflow wells, wells used to
drain surface runoff from a
wildlife management area.
Landslide control wells.
Potable water tank overflow
wells and swimming pool
drainage wells.
All USEPA Regions
All
States
1,945
>3,750
Total estimated number counts the
documented number when the estimate is
NR.
Unless otherwise noted, the best professional judgement is that of the state or USEPA Regional staff completing the survey
questionnaire.
N/A Not applicable.
NR Not reported.
September 30, 1999
-------
Indiana and Florida contain the largest number of special drainage wells, with 1,102
documented in Indiana and 782 in Florida. All but two of the special drainage wells in Indiana are
steam trap wells, located at a single facility in East Chicago, Indiana. They are associated with boiler
operations and are located throughout the facility. Hot steam is transferred from the power station
steam boilers to a pipeline system that distributes the steam throughout the plant. As the steam travels
through the system of pipelines, it cools and generates a condensate that travels to the steam traps
where it is discharged. In this way, steam is not released from the pipelines. No other steam trap wells
have been reported as special drainage wells anywhere else in the country. The other two special
drainage wells in Indiana are drinking water fountain drainage wells.
The 782 documented wells in Florida consist of swimming pool drainage wells and a type of
mine dewatering well known as connector wells. The majority of the estimated special drainage wells in
Florida are thought to be swimming pool drainage wells, with about 1,300 estimated to exist in Bade
County. Swimming pool drainage wells are generally not constructed in newer pools (Kowalsky
1998). The more prevalent industry practice today is to connect swimming pool drains to sewer
systems. However, drainage wells do exist in older pools (Deuerling, 1997). Separately, 100 to 200
mine dewatering wells are thought to exist in west-central Florida. The Tampa Department of
Environmental Protection believes that most of these mine dewatering wells have been closed.
Although New Hampshire staff did not report the presence of any special drainage wells in the
state, it is likely that they actually exist. The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
described dewatering wells that are frequently used in conjunction with underground storage tank
(UST) installations (Pillsbury 1997). Similarly, Ohio staff have not documented any special drainage
wells, but estimate that 1,000 exist in the state. This estimate was calculated using the amount of
overflow from state park water faucets and the number of ground water-based public water system
overflow control wells in Ohio. The estimate assumes that nearly all special drainage wells in Ohio are
associated with potable drinking water source overflows. Idaho and Oregon are the only other states
where staff report the presence of more than 10 special drainage wells. Idaho documents 20 wells,
which include potable water tank overflow, irrigation well discharge at pump start-up, standpipe
drain/overflow, and surface water runoff from a wildlife management area. Oregon documents 10
special drainage wells, which are used for landslide control by the Oregon Department of
Transportation.
4. WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS AND INJECTION
PRACTICES
4.1 Injectate Characteristics
A variety of inorganic and organic constituents may be released into special drainage wells.
Sampling results from various studies that address the occurrence of these chemicals are summarized
below. This discussion is supported by Attachment A to this volume, which presents complete tables of
injectate quality data for some kinds of special drainage wells. This section compares sampling results
September 30, 1999
-------
to applicable standards, including primary (health-based) MCLs, secondary MCLs (which are not
health-based, but rather are designed to prevent adverse aesthetic effects, such as taste or odor), and
HALs (non-regulatory thresholds designed to prevent adverse health effects).
Steam Trap Wells
As mentioned above, steam trap wells are located at one facility in East Chicago, Indiana. The
injectate reportedly contains a 0.4 ppm amine solution that is added to the boiler feedwater as a
corrosion inhibitor and the condensate consists of softened water.
Pump Control Valve Discharges and Potable Water Tank Overflow Discharges
No data were obtained on the characteristics of injectate from pump control valve discharges
and potable water tank overflow discharges. However, fluids injected in these kinds of special
drainage wells are expected to generally meet drinking water standards since they originate from
municipal potable water supply storage systems, assuming the water meets drinking water standards.
For example, water tank overflow wells in Idaho have been reported to drain waters that comply with
drinking water standards (USEPA, 1987).
Landslide Control Wells
Although landslide control wells are known to exist in several western states, no data on the
quality of the fluids injected into these wells were obtained.
Swimming Pool Drainage Wells
As part of the requirements for an industrial waste discharge permit, "Venetian Pool of Coral
Gables, Florida, sampled its swimming pool effluent in July 1993. Table 2 presents the results of this
sampling and analysis. None of the detected constituents exceed the MCLs; however, coliforms are
present at 2 per 100 milliliters. The microbiology primary MCL states that no more than 5 percent of
the total samples taken in a month may test positive for coliform. For water systems that collect fewer
than 40 routine samples per month, no more than one sample can test positive for coliform.
According to the National Swimming Pool Foundation, the water drained from swimming pools
can contain notable amounts of algae. However, it is more likely to be very similar to drinking water,
just with a higher amount of chlorine. Typical chlorine levels are expected to be on the order of 2 ppm
(Kowalsky 1998).
September 30, 1999
-------
Table 2. Water Quality Data from a Swimming Pool Drainage Well
Venetian Pool, Coral Gables, Florida
Constituent
Trihalomethanes (mg/1)
Total Dissolved Solids (mg/1)
Total Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Total Residual C12 (mg/1)
Total Coliform (#7100 ml)
Drinking Water Standards*
mg/1
0.1/0.08'
500
-
4
***
P/S
P
s
P
P
Health Advisory
Levels**
mg/1
-
-
-
-
-
N/C
Class V Well Sample
0.0448
446
<1.0
2.0
2.0
Source: Cadmus, 1999
* Drinking Water Standards: P= Primary; S= Secondary.
** Health Advisory Levels: N= Noncancer Lifetime; C= Cancer Risk.
*** Used as an indicator that other potentially harmful bacteria may be present. No more than 5.0% of samples may be
coliform-positive in a month. For water systems that collect fewer than 40 routine samples per month, no more than one sample
can be total coliform positive.
T 0.1 is the current MCL, 0.08 is the proposed rule for Disinfectants and Disinfection By-products: Total for all THMs
combined cannot exceed the 0.08 level.
-No standards or advisory levels available.
Some general information on the composition of swimming pool drainage can also be found in
pool operation and maintenance guidance. Pool manufacturers recommend the following as ideal levels
of common pool water constituents (Chlorine Chemistry Council, 1998; Raynor Pools, 1998; Prestige
Pools, 1998):
Chlorine: 1.0 to 3.0 ppm
Total Bromine: 2.0 to 4.0 ppm
pH: 7.2 to 7.8
Total Alkalinity: 80 to 140 ppm
Calcium Hardness: 200 to 400 ppm
Total Dissolved Solids: 1,000 to 2,000 ppm.
In addition, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the National Spa and Pool
Institute provide suggested operational parameters for pool water along with their standards for public
swimming pools. These parameters, which are presented in Table A-l in Attachment A to this volume,
are not part of the standards but are provided as guidelines. Of these parameters recommended by the
industry, the TDS level exceeds the secondary MCL.
Although these are the ideal levels for a well-maintained pool, water that is drained from a pool
may not have these levels. Constituent concentrations in pool drainage may be higher or lower than
September 30, 1999
-------
these ideal levels, especially if the pool is being drained at the end of the season or because the water is
out of balance and the pool must be refilled.
Dewatering Wells
Dewatering wells are used at construction sites to lower the water table and keep foundation
excavation pits dry (Rahn, 1997). Dewatering wells may also be used at mining sites, where they are
known as connector wells, to drain water from an upper aquifer into a lower one to facilitate mining
activities. Because water is simply removed from one aquifer and placed into another without treatment
or processing, injectate from construction dewatering wells is the same as the water that was originally
removed from the aquifer. As a result, the injectate will be of high quality unless the surrounding water
quality is poor (Land, 1998).
In Florida, mine dewatering wells used in association with the phosphate mining industry are
known as connector wells (Deuerling, 1997). Connector wells are placed so that they can drain water
from a shallow aquifer into a deeper aquifer. Although the wells recharge the lower aquifer, they are
discussed in this volume (as opposed to the Class V Study on aquifer recharge wells) because their
primary purpose is to dewater soil near the surface in a mining area (Deuerling, 1997). Given the way
connector wells are constructed and operated, the injectate quality is determined solely by the water
quality of the upper aquifer. In Colorado, a dewatering well operated by the US Bureau of
Reclamation injects saline fluids containing CRW-100, which is a Baker Petrolite corrosion inhibitor,
into a deeper aquifer.
Kimrey and Fayard (1984) tested 13 connector wells at eight sites in the phosphate mining area
of Florida. The samples were analyzed for the presence of 75 constituents. The complete results of
these water quality analyses are presented in Tables A-2 and A-3 of Attachment A to this volume. The
authors point out that water recharged into the lower aquifer has moved through the natural filter of
loose sediments in the upper aquifer, thereby possibly lowering the concentrations of some constituents.
The background water quality of the receiving aquifers is unknown.
Tables 3 and 4 present summaries of the water quality data only for those parameters for which
there are drinking water MCLs and/or HALs. Table 3 presents data from three connector well sites
over a two-day sampling period. Table 4 presents on-day sampling data taken from an additional five
sites. All of the samples exceed the primary MCL for turbidity. Several samples were below the lower
end of the secondary MCL range for pH (the lowest reading was 4.3). Nitrogen (as total ammonia) is
present in one sample above the draft noncancer health advisory for ammonia (see Table 4). This
sample also exceeds the secondary MCLs for TDS (residue at 180°C and sum of constituents) and
manganese, the proposed primary MCL for sulfate, and the primary MCL for radium-226. Arsenic is
present in one sample above the primary MCL and above the cancer HAL in several samples. All of
the connector well samples exceed the secondary MCL of 0.3 mg/1 for iron. Several samples also
exceed the action level of 0.015 mg/1 for lead, and two samples exceed the primary MCL for cadmium.
September 30, 1999
-------
Table 3. Summary of Water Quality Data from Multiple Sampling Events at Connector Wells at Three Sites
in Phosphate Mining Area, Polk and Hillsborough Counties, Florida
Constituent
Turbidity (NTU)
pH (SU)
Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (mg/1 as N)
Nitrogen, Nitrite Total (mg/1 as N)
Nitrogen, Nitrate Total (mg/1 as N)
Solids, Residue at 180°C, Dissolved (mg/1)
Solids, Sum of Constituents, Dissolved (mg/1)
Chloride, Dissolved (mg/1 as Cl)
Sulfate, Dissolved (mg/1 as SCij)
Fluoride, Dissolved (mg/1 as F)
Arsenic, Total (mg/1 as As)
Barium, Total Recoverable (mg/1 as Ba)
Cadmium, Total Recoverable (mg/1 as Cd)
Chromium, Total Recoverable (mg/1 as Cr)
Copper, Total Recoverable (mg/1 as Cu)
Iron, Total Recoverable (mg/1 as Fe)
Lead, Total Recoverable (mg/1 as Pb)
Manganese, Total Recoverable (mg/1 as Mn)
Silver, Total Recoverable (mg/1 as Ag)
Strontium, Dissolved (mg/1 as Sr)
Selenium, Total (mg/1 as Se)
Mercury, Total Recoverable (mg/1 as Hg)
Aldrin, Total
Drinking Water
Standards *
mg/1
0.5-1.0
6.5-8.5
-
1
10
500
500
250
500
4
0.050
2
0.005
0.1
1.3
0.300
0.015
0.050
0.1
-
0.05 ug/1
0.002
-
P/
s
P
s
P
P
s
s
s
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
s
P
s
s
P
P
Health Advisory
Levels * *
mg/1
-
-
30
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.002
2
0.005
0.1
-
-
-
-
0.1
17
-
0.002
0.002
N/C
N
C
N
N
N
N
N
N
C
Lonesome Mine (1)
Samples
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
Range
3.0-19
5.3-6.5
0.040-0.090
0.000-0.010
0.00-1.4
52-152
46-135
8.0-16
0.2-7.8
0.3-0.5
0-0.002
<0.050-0.1
0-0.002
0.01-0.020
0.005-0.210
0.7-2.8
0.01-0.036
0.01
0
0-0.1
0-0.001
O.0001-
0.00
Median
7.0
6.2
0.050
0.000
1.0
105
88
10
7.2
0.3
0.001
0.1
0.001
0.010
0.026
1.4
0.018
0.01
0
0.02
0
0.0001
0.00
Big Four Mine (2)
Samples
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Range
2.0-70
5.7-6.9
0.050-0.150
0.00-1.00
0.00-0.03
50-187
50-187
4.4-11
5.0-12
0.4-0.7
0.001-0.002
<0.050-0.1
0-0.009
0.010-0.020
0.005-0.280
0.780-5.6
0.002-0.02
0.01
0
0-0.07
0
O.OOOl-
0.00
Median
25
6.1
0.110
0.005
0.01
130
130
6.5
5.2
0.6
0.001
0.1
0
0.015
0.015
1.075
0.003
0.01
0
0.045
0
0.0001
0.00
IMC-Kingsford (3)
Samples
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Range
2.0-14
6.3-6.6
0.060-0.150
0.00-.040
0.02-1.1
111-190
101-179
13-14
26-38
0.7-1.0
0.001
<0.05
0-0.001
0.010-0.020
0.004-0.016
0.790-1.6
0.004-0.006
0.01-0.02
0
0.02-0.09
0-0.001
0.0001-
0.00
Median
8
6.45
0.105
0.020
0.56
151
140
14
32
0.9
0.001
<0.05
0.0005
0.015
0.010
1.195
0.005
0.015
0
0.055
0.001
0.0002
0.00
September 30, 1999
10
-------
Table 3. Summary of Water Quality Data from Multiple Sampling Events at Connector Wells at Three Sites
in Phosphate Mining Area, Polk and Hillsborough Counties, Florida (Continued)
Constituent
Lindane, Total
Chlordane, Total
Dieldrin, Total
Endrin, Total
Toxaphene, Total
Heptachlor, Total
Heptachlorepoxide, Total
Methoxychlor, Total
PCB, Total
Malathion, Total
Diazinon, Total
Methylparathion, Total
2,4,5-T, Total
Radium 226, Dissolved, Radon Method (pCi/1)
Uranium, Dissolved, Extraction
Drinking Water
Standards *
mg/1
0.0002
0.002
-
0.002
0.003
0.0004
0.0002
0.04
0.0005
-
-
-
-
5
0.02
P/
S
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Health Advisory
Levels * *
mg/1
0.0002
0.003
0.0002
0.002
0.003
0.0008
0.0004
0.040
0.0005
0.2
0.0006
0.002
0.07
20
***
N/C
N
C
C
N
C
C
C
N
C
N
N
N
N
C
Lonesome Mine (1)
Samples
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Range
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.25-1.0
0000.06-
Median
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.85
0.00025
Big Four Mine (2)
Samples
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Range
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.34-1.2
0.00009-
Median
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.80
0.00024
IMC-Kingsford (3)
Samples
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Range
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.1-2.6
0.0005-
Median
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.4
0.0006
Source: Kimrey and Fayard, 1984.
(1) Sampling events took place at the Lonesome Mine near Fort Lonesome, Florida, on September 4-5, 1980.
(2) Sampling events took place at the Big Four Mine in Hillsborough County, Florida, on August 28-29,1980.
(3) Sampling events took place at the IMC-Kingsford Mine in Hillsborough and Polk Counties, Florida, on August 25-26.
-No standards or advisory levels available.
* Drinking Water Standards: P= Primary; S= Secondary. ** Health Advisory Levels: N= Noncancer Lifetime; C= Cancer Risk. *** Under review.
September 30, 1999
11
-------
Table 4. Summary of Water Quality Data from
Multiple Sampling Events at Connector Wells at Five Sites in
Phosphate Mining Area, Polk and Hillsborough Counties, Florida
Constituent
Turbidity (NTU)
pH (SU)
Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (mg/1 as N)
Nitrogen, Nitrite Total (mg/1 as N)
Nitrogen, Nitrate Total (mg/1 as N)
Solids, Residue at 180 ° C, Dissolved
(mg/1)
Solids, Sum of Constituents, Dissolved
(mg/1)
Chloride, Dissolved (mg/1 as Cl)
Sulfate, Dissolved (mg/1 as 804)
Fluoride, Dissolved (mg/1 as F)
Arsenic, Total (mg/1 as As)
Barium, Total Recoverable (mg/1 as Ba)
Cadmium, Total Recoverable (mg/1 as Cd)
Chromium, Total Recoverable (mg/1 as
Cr)
Copper, Total Recoverable (mg/1 as Cu)
Iron, Total Recoverable (mg/1 as Fe)
Lead, Total Recoverable (mg/1 as Pb)
Manganese, Total Recoverable (mg/1 as
Mn)
Silver, Total Recoverable (mg/1 as Ag)
Strontium, Dissolved (mg/1 as Sr)
Selenium, Total (mg/1 as Se)
Mercury, Total Recoverable (mg/1 as Hg)
Aldrin, Total
Lindane, Total
Chlordane, Total
Dieldrin, Total
Endrin, Total
Drinking Water
Standards *
mg/1
0.5-1.0
6.5-8.5
-
1
10
500
500
250
500
4
0.05
2
0.005
0.1
1.3
0.3
0.015
0.05
0.1
-
0.05
0.002
-
0.0002
0.002
-
0.002
P/S
p
s
p
p
s
s
s
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
s
p
s
s
p
p
p
p
p
Health
Advisory
Levels **
mg/1
-
-
30
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.002
2
0.005
0.1
-
-
-
-
0.1
17
-
0.002
0.0002
0.0002
0.003
0.0002
0.002
N/C
N
C
N
N
N
N
N
N
C
N
C
C
N
(1)
16
6.0
0.020
0.000
9.2
195
85
18
3.1
0.2
0.002
0.01
0.002
0.01
0.009
1
0.003
0.01
0
0.07
0
0.0003
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(2)
20
6.8
0.020
0.000
0.32
277
246
11
34
0.9
0.02
<0.05
0.002
0.02
0.097
1.2
0.01
0.04
0
0.13
0.001
0.0007
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(3)
13
6.4
0.040
0.000
0.01
286
281
16
18
0.7
0.002
0.1
0
0.01
0.007
1.4
0.002
0.03
0
0.21
0
O.OOOl
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(4)
3.0
7.1
0.020
0.000
0.43
140
128
5.0
5.4
0.4
0.11
<0.05
0
0.02
0.011
0.11
0.001
0.01
0
0.13
0
<0.000 1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(5)
35
4.3
160
0.000
0.08
3580
3430
20
2600
1.6
0.002
<0.05
0.008
0.02
0.015
25
0.008
0.71
0
-
0
0.0002
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
September 30, 1999
12
-------
Table 4. Summary of Water Quality Data from
Multiple Sampling Events at Connector Wells at Five Sites in
Phosphate Mining Area, Polk and Hillsborough Counties, Florida
(Continued)
Constituent
Toxaphene, Total
Heptachlor, Total
Hep tachl or ep oxide, Total
Methoxychlor, Total
PCB, Total
Malathion, Total
Diazinon, Total
Methylparathion, Total
2,4,5-T, Total
Radium 226, Dissolved, Radon Method
(pCi/l)
Uranium, Dissolved, Extraction
Drinking Water
Standards *
mg/l
0.003
0.0004
0.0002
0.04
0.0005
-
-
-
-
5
0.02
P/S
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Health
Advisory
Levels **
mg/l
0.003
0.0008
0.0004
0.04
0.0005
0.2
0.0006
0.002
0.07
20
***
N/C
C
c
C
N
C
N
N
N
N
C
(1)
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.8
0.0051
(2)
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-
1.1
0.0014
(3)
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.95
0.01.3
(4)
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.93
0.011
(5)
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.9
0.0016
Source: Kimrey andFayard, 1984.
(1) Watson Mine. Sampling events took place at Watson Mine on August 20, 1980.
(2) Silver City Mine. Sampling events took place at Silver City Mine on August 20, 1980.
(3) Fort Meade Mine. Sampling events took place at Fort Meade Mine on August 20, 1980.
(4) Nichols Mine. Sampling events took place at Nichols Mine on August 19, 1980.
(5) Phosphoria Mine. Sampling events took place at Phosphoria Mine on August 21,1980.
* Drinking Water Standards: P= Primary; S= Secondary .
** Health Advisory Levels: N= Noncancer Lifetime; C= Cancer Risk.
*** Under review.
-No standards or advisory levels available.
The Druid Mine Shaft in Colorado received a one-time discharge, via gravity, of treated fluid
into the mine shaft (Stewart, 1993). The source of the injection fluid was a solution pond with a near
neutral pH, containing trace amounts of cyanide and heavy metals. Table A-4 in Attachment A to this
volume presents the chemical analysis of the injectate. Table 5 summarizes these data for those
parameters for which there are detected values, drinking water MCLs, and/or HALs. As shown,
several inorganics were reported above the MCLs and/or HALs: cadmium, cyanide, manganese,
molybdenum, nickel, nitrate, TDS, and sulfate.
September 30, 1999
13
-------
Table 5. Summary of Water Quality Data from Druid Mine Shaft
Constituent
Aluminum
Arsenic, total
Barium, dissolved
Beryllium, dissolved
Boron, dissolved
Cadmium, recoverable
Chromium, total
Copper, recoverable
Cyanide, total
Fluoride, dissolved
Iron, recoverable
Lead, recoverable
Manganese, recoverable
Mercury, recoverable
Molybdenum, dissolved
Nickel, dissolved
Nitrogen, Nitrate
Nitrogen, Nitrite
pH
Selenium, recoverable
Silver, recoverable
Solids, dissolved
Sulfate, total
Zinc, recoverable
Drinking Water Standards *
mg/1
0.05 -0.2
0.05
2
0.004
-
0.005
0.1
1.3
0.2
4
0.3
0.015
0.05
0.002
-
0.1
10
1
6.5 - 8.5
0.05
0.1
500
500/250
5
P/S
s
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
s
p
s
p
p
p
p
s
p
s
s
P/S
s
Health Advisory Levels * *
mg/1
-
0.002
2
0.0008
0.6
0.005
0.1
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
0.002
0.04
0.1
-
-
-
-
0.1
-
-
2
N/C
C
N
C
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Results mg/1
(dissolved basis)
0.14
0.002
<.02
<02
0.13
0.067
0.02
1.10
2.24
1.71
0.08
<.001
0.84
0.0006
0.26
1.75
37.8
0.10
8.15
0.006
0.026
4560
2080
1.56
Source: Stewart, 1993
* Drinking Water Standards: P= Primary; S= Secondary
** Health Advisory Levels: N= Noncancer Lifetime; C= Cancer Risk
-No standards or advisory levels available.
September 30, 1999
14
-------
4.2 Well Characteristics
No information is available on the design characteristics of steam trap wells or pump control
valve discharge and potable water tank overflow discharge wells. The information available for the
kinds of special drainage wells is presented below
Landslide Control Wells
The dewatering process helps to remove ground water that can act as a lubricant in an active or
potentially active landslide area. Two types of landslide control wells exist. One type is a configuration
of vertical drainage wells placed above horizontal drainage systems (a pipe or trench). The horizontal
components receive water from the vertical wells and discharge it to surface outlets. This type of
landslide control well is not considered a Class V well because it does not inject or drain fluids to the
subsurface (the drained water is released onto the land surface or into surface water bodies).
The other method of landslide control employs vertical wells that carry water from the shallow
subsurface in the landslide-prone area to a deeper zone. The water drains into deeper, often very
porous, sediments through an open borehole. Such wells often range in depth from 200 to 250 feet,
and extend approximately 150 feet deep into the underlying formation.
Swimming Pool Drainage Wells
The typical construction of a swimming pool drainage well in Florida is shown in Figure 1. A
review of records in Dade County Florida, in 1984 showed that most swimming pool drainage wells
are less than four inches in diameter and range from approximately 20 to approximately 150 feet in
depth. The drainage wells typically are cased almost completely, except for a few feet at the bottom of
the well. This allows injection to occur in only a relatively thin section of the aquifer.
The standard practice for swimming pool wastewater disposal is discharge into a sanitary sewer
through an approved air gap or into an "approved subsurface disposal system" (ANSI, 1991).
According to the National Spa and Pool Institute and the National Swimming Pool Foundation, this
subsurface system does not include drainage wells, but is more likely to be a storm sewer or sewage
line, depending on individual community requirements (DiGiovanni, 1998; Kowalsky 1998).
September 30, 1999 15
-------
Figure 1. Typical Construction of a
Swimming Pool Drainage Well in Florida
WftTER
z
7
^T7_
270)
/ / / i
EXPLANATION
m
SAW
CLAY
KXJQMTIC
CAVITIES
WELL
CASING
SWELL
AQUIFER
DRAINAGE WELL
Zflnrey and Fay aid,
OPE*
HOLE
MATER LEVEL OR
PCTTCimOMETRlC
Dewatering Wells
Connector wells, a type of mine dewatering well which drains water from an upper aquifer to a
lower one, have been used heavily in phosphate mining operations in Florida. Figure 2 shows the
typical construction of such a connector well. A well screen is placed in the clastic sediment of the
upper aquifer zone and the bottom of the well casing is seated in competent rock. The depth of the well
depends on the depth of the receiving aquifer: the well must be drilled to a zone that has suitable
transmissivity to receive the drained water. An effective connector well will be placed where the
screened upper zone has adequate yields, where there is a prevailing natural downward gradient, and
where there is sufficient transmissivity in the receiving zone (Kimrey and Fayard, 1984). State officials
describe connector wells as connecting the surficial aquifer with the upper part of the Floridan aquifer.
The wells are typically 2 to 4-inches in and probably have no grouting.
September 30, 1999
16
-------
Figure 2. Typical Construction of a Connector Well in Florida
WATER TABLE
UNST,
FLORIOAN
LOWER UNIT.
EXPLANATION
CL/nf
Source "SLiasey aadF^ard, 1*5^
WATER LEVEL
POTENTIOMETRIC
As of the mid-1980s, connector wells were found primarily in Florida and used mainly for the
dual purpose of facilitating mining by removal of ground water and recharging lower aquifers (Kimrey
and Fayard, 1984). However, information gathered for the Class V UIC Study indicates that state
officials have attempted to close most of these wells (Cadmus, 1999). The Florida Department of
Environmental Protection confirms that as these wells are discovered, they are plugged, and no new
wells are permitted (Richtar, 1999). The US Bureau of Reclamation operated a similar type of
dewatering well in Bedrock, Colorado. The Paradox "Valley Salinity Control Well No. 1 is used for the
purpose of disposing of brine captured from springs that discharge into the Delores River. The well
draws saline water from the shallow aquiifer that recharges the river and injects it into a deeper aquifer.
As shown in Figure 3, the mine dewatering wells found in Nevada range from 250 to 2,000 feet
deep and are cased with steel. The wells are typically completed in alluvium, or sometimes bedrock,
and drainage occurs under low pressures. Operators are encouraged to place the screened interval of
the well completely below the water table to prevent dissolution of minerals in the vadose zone, which
would degrade water quality (Land, 1998).
September 30, 1999
17
-------
Figure 3. Typical Construction of a Dewatering Well in Nevada
NEWMDNT GDLD COMPANY - TWIN CREEKS MINE
UNDERGROUND INJECTION WELL INJ 9-1
TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION DETAIL
_j i'm 171
L-U
1 r n-.utjnl
' " 1
^
VJK.WI
CCrtCHT IE«L nCTINDHC IIT ICLDW HUEGHlX WiC
(±1ThBHC H' AXTJi; WELL ICACjH
If JTAIU.LQ I1EE1 WJK WHV 1LOT
1LDT 141E MW
KlpT Tp SCALE
Saurce Laod,
Construction dewatering wells are similar to the mine dewatering connector wells described
above. However, they tend to be more shallow, about 100 to 200 feet in depth, and located in urban
areas. Construction dewatering wells are cased with steel, completed in bedrock or alluvium, and drain
by gravity or slight pressure. When used for construction, dewatering wells usually function only
September 30, 1999
18
-------
temporarily. However, some dewatering wells may be permitted for longer periods of use when
buildings have deep subsurface structures and dewatering is necessary to prevent structural flooding or
structure problems (Land, 1998).
ANSI and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), in their guidelines on urban
subsurface drainage, do not address injection or draining water deeper into the subsurface. In fact, the
guidelines recommend that water collected in a drainage system be conveyed to a "safe and adequate
outlet, such as a natural outfall or storm drainage facility." A transverse drainage system is
recommended for ground water drainage. Such a transverse system is typically situated underneath a
road or railroad. It consists of horizontal interceptor drains that collect ground water as it flows through
a granular drainage layer. The interceptor drains then carry the water to an outlet following the
guidelines described above. The water is not drained into the subsurface (ANSI, 1993 a).
The Idarado Mine in Telluride, Colorado is an example of a mine dewatering operation where
water was collected from two upper mine levels and then reinjected to the lowest mine level, the Mill
Level Tunnel, in hopes of improving the water quality in the San Miguel River Basin. Historically, the
two upper mine levels of the Idarado Mine, the Bullion and Penn Tunnels, discharged to Marshall
Creek, a tributary of the San Miguel River. By rerouting the upper mine water to the lowest mine
level, the water will eventually be discharged into a passive water treatment system before entering the
San Miguel River Basin.
The mine water was routed via an 850-foot, high density, polyethylene-lined drill hole which
was authorized as a Class V injection well. In contrast with typical underground injection systems, the
water from the Penn and Bullion portals does not remain underground, but rather is discharged to the
surface (Eddy, 1996).
The Kelley Mine in Butte, Montana also operated a mine dewatering well. Up to 450 gallons
per minute of ground water was pumped from the Kelley shaft, metals were then extracted, the ground
water treated, and the fluid reinjected into the Parrot and Steward mine shafts (McCarthy, 1996).
4.3 Operational Practices
No information has been obtained on the operational practices of steam trap well, pump control
valve discharge and potable water tank overflow discharge wells, or landslide control wells.
New connector wells in Florida must demonstrate that all applicable water quality standards
will be met at the point of injection or that fluids are not being injected into a USDW. Other kinds of
dewatering wells that are technically not connector wells are used at mines. For example:
• At the Kelley Mine in Butte, Silver Bow County, Montana, 50 to 60 pounds of metal were
recovered per 1,000 gallons of mine water drawn from 3,300 feet below the surface of the
Kelley Mine (Western, 1992). The principal metals recovered were: aluminum, calcium,
magnesium, manganese, iron, and zinc. In October 1996, zinc was the primary metal being
September 30, 1999 19
-------
extracted. Mine water was directed to the zinc extraction unit where zinc in the water was
precipitated with sodium hydrosulfide and then removed from the mine water stream. The
arsenic that was contained in the mine water co-precipitated with the zinc. After removal of the
hydrosulfide precipitate, the water was reinjected into the Kelley Mine. The precipitated zinc
was washed with city water and the decanted wash water was also reinjected. The
precipitated zinc was re-dissolved in sulfuric acid, which resulted in a zinc sulfate solution and
an elemental sulfur sludge. The arsenic from the mine water remained in this non-leachable
state in the sludge and was reinjected to the Kelly Mine. In December 1995, it was estimated
that 750,000 gallons of mine water had been processed in such a manner.
• As described in Section 4.1, the Druid Mine Shaft in Colorado received a one-time discharge,
via gravity, of treated fluid into the mine shaft. The source of the injection fluid was a solution
pond, and the injectate amount was limited to 750,000 gallons. The solution was first treated in
batches of 100,000 to 200,000 gallons, and retained in holding ponds until permission to inject
was granted. There was not sufficient ground water present at the Druid Mine site to establish
a the presence of a true aquifer or a regional water table. There were no construction
procedures since the injection well used was an already existing mine shaft and no pressure was
utilized (Stewart, 1993).
In Florida, where swimming pool drainage wells are most common, there are no operating
requirements. The frequency of swimming pool drainage depends on the climate in which the pool is
located. In colder climates, swimming pools are usually drained as part of the winterizing process.
Once a year, the water level is lowered by about one half to one third its normal level. Pools in warmer
climates generally circulate their water throughout the year and are drained only for special repairs
(DiGiovanni, 1998). In Dade County, swimming pool drainage wells are permitted to drain into the
freshwater or saline zones of the Biscayne aquifer (Kimrey and Fayard, 1984). The Biscayne aquifer, a
USDW, is the only source of drinking water for approximately three million people who live in areas
from Homestead, Florida, in Dade County, northward to Boca Raton, in Palm Beach County, Florida
(Randazzo and Jones, 1997).
5. POTENTIAL AND DOCUMENTED DAMAGE TO USDWs
5.1 Injectate Constituent Properties
The primary constituent properties of concern when assessing the potential for Class V special
drainage wells to adversely affect USDWs are toxicity persistence, and mobility. The toxicity of a
constituent is the potential of that contaminant to cause adverse health effects if consumed by humans.
Appendix D to the Class V Study provides information on the health effects associated with
contaminants found above drinking water MCLs or HALs in the injectate of special drainage and other
Class V wells. As discussed in Section 4.1, coliforms were found to be present in swimming pool
drainage wells injectate, and the contaminants that have been observed above MCLs or HALs in
dewatering well injectate are turbidity, nitrogen (ammonia), sulfate, radium, arsenic, lead, cadmium,
cyanide, molybdenum, nickel, nitrate, TDS, pH, manganese, and iron.
September 30, 1999 20
-------
Persistence is the ability of a chemical to remain unchanged in composition, chemical state, and
physical state over time. Appendix E to the Class V Study presents published half-lives of common
constituents in fluids released in special drainage and other Class V wells. All of the values reported in
Appendix E are for ground water. Caution is advised in interpreting these values because ambient
conditions have a significant impact on the persistence of both inorganic and organic compounds.
Appendix E also provides a discussion of mobility of certain constituents found in the injectate of
special drainage and other Class V wells.
The point of injection for most special drainage wells is typically within a permeable, coarse-
grained limestone or sand unit (e.g., those in Florida). Therefore, conditions are likely to be present
that would allow constituents in special drainage well injectate to be highly mobile.
5.2 Observed Impacts
No incidents of contamination caused by any kind of special drainage well were found during
the survey conducted for the Class V Study (Cadmus, 1999). As summarized below, the information
collected suggests that swimming pool drainage wells in Florida should pose minimal risk while
connector wells associated with the phosphate mining industry in Florida have the potential to endanger
USDWs.
Swimming Pool Drainage Wells
Even though swimming pool drainage wells in Florida drain into saline or fresh zones of the
Biscayne aquifer, officials in Florida do not consider swimming pool drainage wells to be a threat to
USDWs because of their intermittent use (Deuerling, 1997). Moreover, Kimrey and Fayard (1984)
suggest that injection of swimming pool water into the Biscayne aquifer in Florida has little effect on the
potability of water in the aquifer because the injectate quality is not appreciably different from water that
was withdrawn from the aquifer to initially fill the swimming pool. They conclude that as long as
injection is restricted to aquifer zones where water chloride concentrations exceed 1,500 mg/1,
contamination of the aquifer does not pose a problem.
Dewatering Wells
Kimrey and Fayard (1984) express concern over the quality of water received by the Floridan
aquifer when connector wells are used in association with the phosphate mining industry. In this case,
highly mineralized water was injected into the USDW and samples from 12 of 13 wells sampled
exceeded MCLs for turbidity and total iron concentrations. In addition, seven of the 13 wells injected
waters that exceeded the requirements for gross alpha radioactivity levels (Kimrey and Fayard, 1984).
September 30, 1999 21
-------
6. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
The following sections discuss the information that is available on best management practices
(BMPs) and alternatives to special drainage wells.
Landslide Control Wells
Large diameter deep drainage wells are being used in Italy to protect urban and other areas
from landslides. The system, known as RODREN, is composed of large vertical drainage wells, about
1,200-1,500 millimeters in diameter, located about five to seven meters apart, and connected at their
bases by a horizontal pipe about 76 to 100 millimeters in diameter. The vertical wells are waterproofed
at the top and closed by steel covers if they are to be used as inspection or structural wells. These
wells are also waterproofed at the bottom underneath the point where it is connected to the horizontal
well (Bianco and Bruce, 1991). This prevents drainage into the deeper subsurface. The depth of the
vertical and horizontal wells varies according to the geological structures in the area. The horizontal
discharge pipe is located below the slip surface. The RODREN system has been found to be effective
in increasing slope stability, cost effective in comparison to other drainage systems, and adaptable to
various types of slope geometry and geology (Bruce, 1992).
Swimming Pool Drainage Wells
In Florida, owners of swimming pools are cautioned not to locate a drainage well near a
drinking water supply well (Deuerling, 1997). According to the National Swimming Pool Foundation,
swimming pool drainage wells are an obsolete technology. The alternative, which is now used in most
pool construction and drainage, is to pump water from a drain in the bottom of the pool to a sewage
line or storm sewer. The pump is placed beneath the pool drain. The destination of the water depends
on the standards and typical practices of the individual community (Kowalsky 1998). Contemporary
manuals on the construction and operation of swimming pools describe similar practices and do not
mention or recommend drainage into the subsurface. One manual suggests placing two main drains, at
least 8 to 12 feet apart, at the deepest part of the pool. A concrete or fiberglass plastic grate is placed
over the drain. When the construction elevations and placement of the pool allow, the main drains
convey water by unrestricted gravity flow to the storm or sewer line. A pump may be necessary if the
pool is situated so that gravity drainage is not possible (Gabrielsen, 1987).
Dewatering Wells
If there are contaminated sites near a construction site, dewatering may draw in the
contaminated water, thus polluting a previously uncontaminated aquifer. The Nevada UIC Program
suggests searching the area for corrective action sites or potential sources of contamination to reduce
the chances of this type of incident (Land, 1998). In Florida, the Department of Environmental
Protection examines the areas surrounding the wells and assesses the mining materials that are used as
well as any pollutants that might be emitted from equipment (e.g., oil and grease). According to state
September 30, 1999 22
-------
staff, connector well injectate does not usually contain significant levels of contaminants, and the wells
are usually located in rural areas away from populations (Richtar, 1999).
The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection describes BMPs for foundation
drainage and dewatering, which is often used in conjunction with construction dewatering to maintain
the long-term integrity of a completed foundation. According to the BMP manual, uncontaminated
water from foundation drainage and dewatering may be discharged to a storm sewer or stream in
accordance with federal, state, or local requirements. However, if contaminated ground water is
discovered, proper investigation and remediation is necessary. The presence of contaminated ground
water may indicate a ground water contamination problem (Inglese, 1992).
Although ANSI and ASCE do not specifically recommend injection or subsurface drainage into
deeper aquifers, they do address water quality with respect to urban subsurface drainage. Available
guidelines state that developments in the drainage area of a well can generate pollutants that could be
conveyed into the subsurface. If flow rate through the drainage system is increased, pollutants will be
transported more quickly. The guidelines recommend reviewing the area periodically after construction
of the subsurface drainage system to determine if any nearby changes (e.g., new development and
construction) have affected the composition and volume of subsurface flow The guidelines state that
sampling, monitoring, and treatment may be needed if contamination problems are present (ANSI,
1993b).
The ANSI guidelines also recommend routine, thorough inspections to "keep systems clean,
soil-tight, structurally intact, and free of debris." The inspection schedule will vary according to various
factors, including the climate and geology of the area. ANSI (1993b) recommends that the following
elements be included in a thorough inspection:
• Look for accumulated debris, rodents, or other obstacles to flow at inlets and outlets.
• Check the interior of the system for roots, mineral deposits, trash, silt accumulations, or other
objects that might impede flow
• Inspect the ground surface for signs of subsurface drainage leakage.
• Check inlet and outlet areas for evidence of soil erosion, which can impede structural and
hydraulic performance.
• Examine visible structures, such as catch basins, headwalls, and culverts, for signs of wear or
breakage.
• Check upstream in the drainage system for backups or collections of surface water that indicate
reduced inflows.
The guidelines also recommend using electronic and optical aids like television cameras and
fiber optic scopes to reveal the presence of cracks, displacements, misalignments, and other interior
problems in the system. Finally, it is suggested that an aggressive preventive maintenance program be
designed and implemented. This includes regular inspection of structure for signs of structural distress
and loss of hydraulic function. Also, cleaning the subsurface drainage system regularly prevents
clogging. The standards suggest the use of high-pressure hydraulic drain cleaners or chemical treatment
September 30, 1999 23
-------
where there is no access for mechanical cleaning. When chemical cleaning is done, the standards
recommend that it be accomplished "in an environmentally responsible manner" which includes
neutralizing acid solutions that might be used to dissolved iron ocher deposits (ANSI, 1993b).
7. CURRENT REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
Several federal, state, and local programs exist that either directly manage or regulate Class V
special drainage wells. On the federal level, management and regulation of these wells falls primarily
under the UIC program authorized by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Some states and
localities have used these authorities, as well as their own authorities, to extend the controls in their
areas to address concerns associated with special drainage wells.
7.1 Federal Programs
Class V wells are regulated under the authority of Part C of SDWA. Congress enacted the
SDWA to ensure protection of the quality of drinking water in the United States, and Part C specifically
mandates the regulation of underground injection of fluids through wells. USEPA has promulgated a
series of UIC regulations under this authority. USEPA directly implements these regulations for Class
V wells in 19 states or territories (Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii,
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New "Vbrk, Pennsylvania, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Virginia, Virgin Islands, and Washington, DC). USEPA also directly implements all Class
V UIC programs on Tribal lands. In all other states, which are called Primacy States, state agencies
implement the Class V UIC program, with primary enforcement responsibility.
Special drainage wells currently are not subject to any specific regulations tailored just for them,
but rather are subject to the UIC regulations that exist for all Class V wells. Under 40 CFR 144.12(a),
owners or operators of all injection wells, including special drainage wells, are prohibited from engaging
in any injection activity that allows the movement of fluids containing any contaminant into USDWs, "if
the presence of that contaminant may cause a violation of any primary drinking water regulation ... or
may otherwise adversely affect the health of persons."
Owners or operators of Class V wells are required to submit basic inventory information under
40 CFR 144.26. When the owner or operator submits inventory information and is operating the well
such that a USDW is not endangered, the operation of the Class V well is authorized by rule.
Moreover, under section 144.27, USEPA may require owners or operators of any Class V well, in
USEPA-administered programs, to submit additional information deemed necessary to protect
USDWs. Owners or operators who fail to submit the information required under sections 144.26 and
144.27 are prohibited from using their wells.
Sections 144.12(c) and (d) prescribe mandatory and discretionary actions to be taken by the
UIC Program Director if a Class V well is not in compliance with section 144.12(a). Specifically, the
Director must choose between requiring the injector to apply for an individual permit, ordering such
action as closure of the well to prevent endangerment, or taking an enforcement action. Because
September 30, 1999 24
-------
special drainage wells (like other kinds of Class V wells) are authorized by rule, they do not have to
obtain a permit unless required to do so by the UIC Program Director under 40 CFR 144.25.
Authorization by rule terminates upon the effective date of a permit issued or upon proper closure of the
well.
Separate from the UIC program, the SDWA Amendments of 1996 establish a requirement for
source water assessments. USEPA published guidance describing how the states should carry out a
source water assessment program within the state's boundaries. The final guidance, entitled Source
Water Assessment and Programs Guidance (USEPA 816-R-97-009), was released in August
1997.
State staff must conduct source water assessments that are comprised of three steps. First,
state staff must delineate the boundaries of the assessment areas in the state from which one or more
public drinking water systems receive supplies of drinking water. In delineating these areas, state staff
must use "all reasonably available hydrogeologic information on the sources of the supply of drinking
water in the state and the water flow, recharge, and discharge and any other reliable information as the
state deems necessary to adequately determine such areas." Second, the state staff must identify
contaminants of concern, and for those contaminants, they must inventory significant potential sources
of contamination in delineated source water protection areas. Class V wells, including special drainage
wells, should be considered as part of this source inventory, if present in a given area. Third, the state
staff must "determine the susceptibility of the public water systems in the delineated area to such
contaminants." State staff should complete all of these steps by May 2003 according to the final
guidance.1
7.2 State and Local Programs
As presented in Section 3 above, more than more than 95% of documented and more than
70% of the estimated special drainage wells in the nation exist in six states: Alaska, Florida, Idaho,
Indiana, Ohio, and Oregon. Attachment B to this volume describes how each of these states currently
address special drainage wells.
The statutory and regulatory framework for special drainage injection wells in the six states with
the largest numbers of wells fall into two major groups.
• In states in which the UIC Class V program is directly implemented by USEPA, the states do
not have regulatory provisions that specifically address special drainage wells. However,
Alaska requires individual permits for discharges of domestic wastewater to ground water that
are greater than 500 gallons per day (gpd) or do not go through a soil absorption system or
receive primary treatment. In Indiana, the other Direct Implementation state with a relatively
large number of special drainage wells, USEPA Region 5 authorizes Class V wells by rule, and
1 May 2003 is the deadline including an 18-month extension.
September 30, 1999 25
-------
the USEPA Region has the authority to impose provisions that ensure that wells do not
endanger USDWs as described in Section 7.1.
Primacy states for Class V UIC wells apply a range of requirements to special drainage wells.
Florida issues general permits for categories of Class V wells. The only exception is single
family swimming pool drainage wells, which Florida includes under general permits. A de
facto ban on connector wells exists in Florida because old wells are terminated and plugged as
they are discovered, and new connector wells are not permitted. Oregon does not specifically
address special drainage wells, yet the state regulations require a water pollution control facility
permit for construction and operation of a waste disposal well. Idaho and Ohio authorize Class
V wells by rule. For special drainage wells, Idaho requires submission of inventory information
and use of the well so that it does result in contamination of a drinking water source or cause a
violation of water quality standards that would affect a beneficial use. Ohio does not
specifically address special drainage wells; however, the state regulations authorize injection
activities as long as a drilling and operating permit is obtained when the well is constructed.
September 30, 1999 26
-------
ATTACHMENT A
INJECTATE QUALITY DATA FOR SPECIAL DRAINAGE WELLS
Table A-l. Suggested Chemical Operational Parameters for
Public and Residential Swimming Pool Waters
Constituent
Free Chlorine (ppm)
Combined Chlorine (ppm)
Bromine (ppm)
pH (SU)
Total Alkalinity (buffering) (ppm as
CaCO,)
Total Dissolved Solids (ppm)
Calcium Hardness (ppm as CaCO,)
Heavy Metals
Algae
Bacteria
Cyanuric Acid (ppm)
Temperature (°F)
Ozone, Low Output Generators Contact
Concentration (mg/1)
Minimum
1.0
None
2.0
7.2
60
300
150
None
None
None
10
-
-
Ideal
1.0-3.0
None
2-4
7.4-7.6
80-100 (for calcium hypochlorite,
lithium hypochlorite, and sodium
hypochlorite)
100-120 (for sodium dichlor,
trichlor, chlorine gas, and bromine
compounds)
1000-2000
200-400
None
None
None
30-50
78-82
-
Maximum
3.0
0.2
4.0
7.8
180
3000
500-1000+
None
None
Dependent upon local code
150
104
0.1
Source: ANSI, 199; ANSI, 1995.
September 30, 1999
27
-------
Table A-2. Complete Water Quality Data from Multiple Sampling Events at Connector Wells
at Three Sites in Phosphate Mining Area, Polk and Hillsborough Counties, Florida
Constituent
Temperature (°C)
Turbidity (NTU)
EC (umhos)
pH (Std. Units)
Carbon Dioxide, Dissolved (mg/1 as CCi)
Alkalinity, Field (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Bicarbonate, FET-FLD (mg/1 as HC03)
Nitrogen, Organic Total (mg/1 as N)
Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (mg/1 as N)
Nitrogen, Nitrite Total (mg/1 as N)
Nitrogen, Nitrate Total (mg/1 as N)
Nitrogen, Ammonia + Organic Total (mg/1 as
N)
Nitrogen, NO2 + NO3 Total (mg/1 as N)
Nitrogen, Total (mg/1 as N)
Carbon, Organic Total (mg/1 as C)
Phosphorus, Ortho, Total (mg/1 as P)
Phosphorus, Total (mg/1 as P)
Hardness (mg/1 as CaCQ,)
Hardness, Noncarbonate (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Solids, Residue at 180°C, Dissolved (mg/1)
Solids, Sum of Constituents, Dissolved (mg/1)
Calcium, Dissolved (mg/1 as Ca)
Magnesium, Dissolved (mg/1 as Mg)
Sodium, Dissolved (mg/1 as Na)
Drinking Water
Standards *
mg/1
-
0.5-1.0
-
6.8-8.5
-
-
-
-
-
1
10
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
500
500
-
-
-
P/S
P
P
P
P
s
s
Health Advisory
Levels **
mg/1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
30
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
N/C
N
Lonesome Mine (1)
Samples
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Range
22.5-24.0
3.0-19
70-282
5.3-6.5
59-137
10-106
12-129
0.02-0.17
0.040-0.090
0.000-0.010
0.00-1.4
0.07-0.26
0.00-1.4
0.08-1.7
1.8-32
0.140-0.930
0.540-2.40
20-120
6-20
52-152
46-135
5.0-35
1.9-8.4
4.6-7.0
Median
23.0
7.0
185
6.2
82
61
74
0.06
0.050
0.000
1.0
0.12
1.0
1.1
10
0.340
1.60
73
12
105
88
24
2.9
5.5
Big Four Mine (2)
Samples
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Range
23.0-25.0
2.0-70
103-420
5.7-6.9
26-207
7-121
8-147
0.06-0.82
0.050-0.150
0.00-1.00
0.00-0.03
0.11-0.90
0.01-1.0
0.14-1.9
3.6-22
0.480-6.60
0.720-6.60
95-630
11-620
50-187
50-187
33-120
2.8-79
3.2-220
Median
23.5
25
330
6.1
65
82
101
0.13
0.110
0.005
0.01
0.28
0.02
0.29
11
0.900
1.35
115
16
130
130
41
3.5
6.5
IMC-Kingsford (3)
Samples
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Range
-
2.0-14
200-310
6.3-6.6
38-44
39-90
48-110
0.09-.16
0.060-0.150
0.00-.040
0.02-1.1
0.22-0.24
0.02-1.1
0.26-1.4
11-13
0.090-0.930
0.090-1.20
63-140
24-48
111-190
101-179
16-45
5.7-6.2
10-14
Median
-
8
255
6.45
41
65
79
0.13
0.105
0.020
0.56
0.23
0.56
0.83
12
0.510
0.645
102
36
151
140
31
6.0
12
September 30, 1999
28
-------
Table A-2. Complete Water Quality Data from Multiple Sampling Events at Connector Wells
at Three Sites in Phosphate Mining Area, Polk and Hillsborough Counties, Florida
(Continued)
Constituent
Potassium, Dissolved (mg/1 as K)
Chloride, Dissolved (mg/1 as Cl)
Sulfate, Dissolved (mg/1 as SO4)
Fluoride, Dissolved (mg/1 as F)
Silica, Dissolved (mg/1 as SiO2)
Arsenic, Total (mg/1 as As)
Barium, Total Recoverable (mg/1 as Ba)
Cadmium, Total Recoverable (mg/1 as Cd)
Chromium, Total Recoverable (mg/1 as Cr)
Copper, Total Recoverable (mg/1 as Cu)
Iron, Total Recoverable (mg/1 as Fe)
Lead, Total Recoverable (mg/1 as Pb)
Manganese, Total Recoverable (mg/1 as Mn)
Silver, Total Recoverable (mg/1 as Ag)
Strontium, Dissolved (mg/1 as Sr)
Selenium, Total (mg/1 as Se)
Mercury, Total Recoverable (mg/1 as Hg)
Perthane, Total (mg/1)
Naphthalenes, Polychlor. Total (mg/1)
Aldrin, Total (mg/1)
Lindane, Total (mg/1)
Chlordane, Total (mg/1)
ODD, Total (mg/1)
DDE, Total (mg/1)
Drinking Water
Standards *
mg/1
-
250
500
4
-
0.05
2
0.005
0.1
1.3
0.3
0.015
0.05
0.1
-
0.05
0.002
-
-
-
0.0002
0.002
-
-
P/S
s
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
s
p
s
s
p
p
p
p
Health Advisory
Levels **
mg/1
-
-
-
-
-
0.002
2
0.005
0.1
-
-
-
-
0.1
17
-
0.002
-
-
0.002
0.0002
0.003
-
-
N/C
C
N
N
N
N
N
N
C
N
C
Lonesome Mine (1)
Samples
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Range
0.2-3.9
8.0-16
0.2-7.8
0.3-0.5
3.1-7.8
0-0.002
O.05-0.1
0-0.002
0.01-0.02
0.005-0.21
0.7-2.8
0.01-0.036
0.01
0
0-0.1
0-0.01
O.0001-
0.0001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Median
0.2
10
7.2
0.3
3.6
0.001
0.1
0.001
0.01
0.026
1.4
0.018
0.01
0
0.02
0
0.0001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Big Four Mine (2)
Samples
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Range
0.2-3.0
4.4-11
5.0-12
0.4-0.7
4.2-6.5
0.001-0.002
O.05-0.1
0-0.009
0.01-0.02
0.005-0.28
0.78-5.6
0.002-0.02
0.01
0
0-0.07
0
O.0001-
0.0001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Median
0.3
6.5
5.2
0.6
6.0
0.001
0.1
0
0.015
0.015
1.075
0.003
0.01
0
0.045
0
0.0001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
IMC-Kingsford (3)
Samples
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Range
0.4-0.6
13-14
26-38
0.7-1.0
4.0-7.6
0.001
<0.05
0-0.001
0.01-0.02
0.004-0.016
0.790-1.600
0.004-0.006
0.01-0.02
0
0.02-0.09
0-0.001
0.0001-
0.0002
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Median
0.5
14
32
0.9
5.8
0.001
<0.05
0.0005
0.015
0.001
1.195
0.005
0.015
0
0.055
0.001
0.0002
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
September 30, 1999
29
-------
Table A-2. Complete Water Quality Data from Multiple Sampling Events at Connector Wells
at Three Sites in Phosphate Mining Area, Polk and Hillsborough Counties, Florida
(Continued)
Constituent
DDT, Total (mg/1)
Dieldrin, Tola (mg/1)
Endosulfan, Total (mg/1)
Endrin, Total (mg/1)
Ethion, Total (mg/1)
Toxaphene, Total (mg/1)
Heptachlor, Total (mg/1)
Heptachlorepoxide, Total (mg/1)
Methoxychlor, Total (mg/1)
PCB, Total (mg/1)
Malathion, Total (mg/1)
Parathion, Total (mg/1)
Diazinon, Total (mg/1)
Methylparathion, Total (mg/1)
2,4-D, Total (mg/1)
2,4,5-T, Total (mg/1)
Mirex, Total (mg/1)
Silvex, Total (mg/1)
Total Trithion, (mg/1)
Methyl Trithion, Total (mg/1)
Cesium 137 Dissolved (pCi/1)
Strontium 90 Dissolved (pCi/1)
Radium 226, Dissolved, Radon Method (pCi/1)
Gross Alpha, Dissolved (mg/1 as U-NAT)
Drinking Water
Standards *
mg/1
-
-
-
0.002
-
0.003
0.0004
0.0002
0.04
0.0005
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
-
P/S
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Health Advisory
Levels **
mg/1
-
0.0002
-
0.002 ug/1
-
0.003
0.0008
0.0004
0.04
0.0005
0.2
-
0.0006
0.002
-
0.07
-
-
-
-
-
-
20
-
N/C
C
N
C
C
C
N
C
N
N
N
N
C
Lonesome Mine (1)
Samples
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Range
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00-0.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
<1.0
<0.4-<1.5
0.25-1.0
0.023-
0. 850
Median
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
<1.0
0.4
0.85
0.024
Big Four Mine (2)
Samples
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Range
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
<1.0
<0.4
0.34-1.2
0.053-0.590
Median
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
<1.0
<0.4
0.80
0.114
IMC-Kingsford (3)
Samples
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Range
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
<1.0
<0.4-<0.7
2.1-2.6
0.01-0.038
Median
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
<1.0
0.6
2.4
0.024
September 30, 1999
30
-------
Table A-2. Complete Water Quality Data from Multiple Sampling Events at Connector Wells
at Three Sites in Phosphate Mining Area, Polk and Hillsborough Counties, Florida
(Continued)
Constituent
Gross Beta, Dissolved (PSI/1 as CS-137)
Gross Beta, Dissolved (pCi/1 as YT-90)
Uranium, Dissolved, Extraction (mg/1)
Drinking Water
Standards *
mg/1
-
-
0.02
P/S
Health Advisory
Levels **
mg/1
-
-
***
N/C
Lonesome Mine (1)
Samples
5
5
5
Range
2.2-29
2.1-28
0.00006-.0012
Median
7.4
7.2
0.00025
Big Four Mine (2)
Samples
4
4
4
Range
4.4-25
4.4-25
0.00009-
0.00050
Median
10.3
10
0.00024
IMC-Kingsford (3)
Samples
2
2
2
Range
4.8-5.4
4.6-5.2
0.00050-
0.00070
Median
5.1
4.9
.00060
Source: Kimrey andFayard, 1984.
(1) Sampling events took place at the Lonesome Mine near Fort Lonesome, Florida, on September 4-5,1980.
(2) Sampling events took place at the Big Four Mine in Hillsborough County, Florida, on August 28-29, 1980.
(3) Sampling events took place at the IMC-Kingsford Mine in Hillsborough and Polk Counties, Florida, on August 25-26.
-No standards or advisory levels available.
* Drinking Water Standards: P= Primary; S= Secondary
** Health Advisory Levels: N= Noncancer Lifetime; C= Cancer Risk
*** Under review.
September 30, 1999
31
-------
Table A-3. Complete Water Quality Data from Multiple Sampling Events
at Connector Wells at Five Sites in Phosphate Mining Area,
Polk and Hillsborough Counties, Florida
Constituent
Temperature (° C)
Turbidity (NTU)
EC (umhos)
pH (Std. Units)
Carbon Dioxide, Dissolved (mg/1 as COz)
Alkalinity, Field (mg/1 as CaCQ,)
Bicarbonate, FET-FLD (mg/1 as HC03)
Nitrogen, Organic Total (mg/1 as N)
Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (mg/1 as N)
Nitrogen, Nitrite Total (mg/1 as N)
Nitrogen, Nitrate Total (mg/1 as N)
Nitrogen, Ammonia + Organic Total (mg/1 as N)
Nitrogen, NO2 + NO3 Total (mg/1 as N)
Nitrogen, Total (mg/1 as N)
Carbon, Organic Total (mg/1 as C)
Phosphorus, Ortho, Total (mg/1 as P)
Phosphorus, Total (mg/1 as P)
Hardness (mg/1 as CaCQ,)
Hardness, Noncarbonate (mg/1 as CaCQj)
Solids, Residue at 180 ° C, Dissolved (mg/1)
Solids, Sum of Constituents, Dissolved (mg/1)
Calcium, Dissolved (mg/1 as Ca)
Magnesium, Dissolved (mg/1 as Mg)
Sodium, Dissolved (mg/1 as Na)
Potassium, Dissolved (mg/1 as K)
Chloride, Dissolved (mg/1 as Cl)
Sulfate, Dissolved (mg/1 as SO,)
Fluoride, Dissolved (mg/1 as F)
Silica, Dissolved (mg/1 as SiO2)
Drinking
Water
Standards *
mg/1
-
0.5-1.0
-
6.8-8.5
-
-
-
-
0.006
1
10
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
500
500
-
-
-
-
250
500
4
-
P/
S
P
P
P
P
P
S
S
S
P
P
Health
Advisory
Levels **
mg/1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
30
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
N/
C
N
(1)
25.0
16
214
6.0
70
36
44
0.11
0.020
0.000
9.2
0.13
9.2
9.3
3.1
0.150
2.80
89
53
195
85
24
7.1
5.6
0.2
18
3.1
0.2
4.6
(2)
24.5
20
421
6.8
51
166
202
0.12
0.020
0.000
0.32
0.14
0.32
0.46
16
0.300
0.610
220
54
211
246
51
23
7.4
0.9
11
34
0.9
18
(3)
23.0
13
490
6.4
168
217
264
0.02
0.040
0.000
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.07
9.2
0.730
1.20
270
53
286
281
60
29
12
0.4
16
18
0.7
15
(4)
23.0
3.0
222
7.1
16
100
122
0.01
0.020
0.000
0.43
0.03
0.43
0.46
10
0.530
0.540
120
20
140
128
40
3.7
4.1
0.2
5.0
5.4
0.4
9.0
(5)
25.0
35
4850
4.3
0.0
0
0
1.0
160
0.000
0.08
161
0.08
161
41
0.270
0.320
860
860
3580
3430
230
70
400
18
20
2600
1.6
88
September 30, 1999
32
-------
Table A-3. Complete Water Quality Data from Multiple Sampling Events
at Connector Wells at Five Sites in Phosphate Mining Area,
Polk and Hillsborough Counties, Florida (Continued)
Constituent
Arsenic, Total (mg/1 as As)
Barium, Total Recoverable (mg/1 as Ba)
Cadmium, Total Recoverable (mg/1 as Cd)
Chromium, Total Recoverable (mg/1 as Cr)
Copper, Total Recoverable (mg/1 as Cu)
Iron, Total Recoverable (mg/1 as Fe)
Lead, Total Recoverable (mg/1 as Pb)
Manganese, Total Recoverable (mg/1 as Mn)
Silver, Total Recoverable (mg/1 as Ag)
Strontium, Dissolved (mg/1 as Sr)
Selenium, Total (mg/1 as Se)
Mercury, Total Recoverable (mg/1 as Hg)
Perthane, Total (mg/1)
Naphthalenes, Polychlor. Total (mg/1)
Aldrin, Total (mg/1)
Lindane, Total (mg/1)
Chlordane, Total (mg/1)
ODD, Total (mg/1)
DDE, Total (mg/1)
DDT, Total (mg/1)
Dieldrin, Total (mg/1)
Endosulfan, Total (mg/1)
Endrin, Total (mg/1)
Ethion, Total (mg/1)
Toxaphene, Total (mg/1)
Heptachlor, Total (mg/1)
Heptachlorepoxide, Total (mg/1)
Methoxychlor, Total (mg/1)
PCB, Total (mg/1)
Drinking
Water
Standards *
mg/1
0.05
0.2
0.005
0.1
1.3
0.3
0.015
0.05
0.1
-
0.05
0.002
-
-
-
0.0002
0.002
-
-
-
-
-
0.002
-
0.003
0.0004
0.0002
0.04
0.0005
P/
s
P
P
P
P
P
s
P
s
s
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Health
Advisory
Levels **
mg/1
0.002
0.2
0.005
0.1
-
-
-
-
0.1
17
-
0.002
-
-
0.0002
0.0002
0.003
-
-
-
0.0002
-
0.002
-
0.003
0.0008
0.0004
0.04
0.0005
N/
C
c
N
N
N
N
N
N
C
N
C
C
N
C
C
C
N
C
(1)
0.002
0.1
0.002
0.01
0.009
1
0.003
0.01
0
0.07
0
0.0003
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(2)
0.02
<0.05
0.002
0.02
0.097
1.2
0.010
0.04
0
0.13
0.001
0.0007
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(3)
0.002
0.1
0
0.01
0.007
1.4
0.002
0.03
0
0.21
0
O.0001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(4)
0.11
<0.05
0
0.02
0.011
0.011
0.001
0.01
0
0.13
0
<0.000 1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(5)
0.002
<0.05
0.008
0.02
0.015
25
0.008
0.71
0
-
0
0.0002
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
September 30, 1999
33
-------
Table A-3. Complete Water Quality Data from Multiple Sampling Events
at Connector Wells at Five Sites in Phosphate Mining Area,
Polk and Hillsborough Counties, Florida (Continued)
Constituent
Malathion, Total (mg/1)
Parathion, Total (mg/1)
Diazinon, Total (mg/1)
Methylparathion, Total (mg/1)
2,4-D, Total (mg/1)
2,4,5-T, Total (mg/1)
Mirex, Total (mg/1)
Silvex, Total (mg/1)
Total Trithion, (mg/1)
Methyl Trithion, Total (mg/1)
Cesium 137 Dissolved (pCi/1)
Strontium 90 Dissolved (pCi/1)
Radium 226, Dissolved, Radon Method (pCi/1)
Gross Alpha, Dissolved (mg/1 as U-NAT)
Gross Beta, Dissolved (PSI/1 as CS-137)
Gross Beta, Dissolved (PCI/1 as YT-90)
Uranium, Dissolved, Extraction (mg/1)
Drinking
Water
Standards *
mg/1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
-
-
-
0.02
P/
S
P
P
Health
Advisory
Levels **
mg/1
0.2
-
0.0006
0.002
-
0.07
-
-
-
-
-
-
20
-
-
-
***
N/
C
N
N
N
N
C
(1)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
<1.0
<0.4
4.8
0.012
6.9
6.7
0.0051
(2)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-
-
0.00
-
0.00
0.00
<1.0
<0.4
1.1
O.004
3.9
3.7
0.0014
(3)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
<1.0
<0.4
.95
O.0058
2.3
2.1
0.0013
(4)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
<1.0
<0.4
.93
0.0061
4.2
4.0
0.011
(5)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
<1.0
<0.4
8.9
0.099
110
110
0.0016
Source: Kimrey andFayard, 1984.
(1) Watson Mine. Sampling events took place at Watson Mine on August 20, 1980.
(2) Silver City Mine . Sampling events took place at Silver City Mine on August 20, 1980.
(3) Fort Meade Mine . Sampling events took place at Fort Meade Mine
(4) Nichols Mine. Sampling events took place at Nichols Mine on August 19,1980.
(5) Phosphoria Mine. Sampling events took place at Phosphoria Mine on August 21,1980.
-No standards or advisory levels available.
* Drinking Water Standards: P= Primary; S= Secondary
** Health Advisory Levels: N= Noncancer Lifetime; C= Cancer Risk
*** Under review.
September 30, 1999
34
-------
Table A-4. Complete Water Quality Data from Druid Mine Shaft
Constituent
Alkalinity, as CaCOS
Aluminum
Arsenic, total
Barium, dissolved
Beryllium, dissolved
Boron, dissolved
Cadmium, recoverable
Calcium, total
Chloride
Chromium, total
Copper, recoverable
Cyanide, total
Fluoride, dissolved
Hardness, as CaCOS
Hardness, total
Iron, recoverable
Lead, recoverable
Magnesium, total
Manganese, recoverable
Mercury, recoverable
Molybdenum, dissolved
Nickel, dissolved
Nitrogen, Ammonia
Nitrogen, Nitrate
Nitrogen, Nitrite
pH
Potassium, total
Selenium, recoverable
Silver, recoverable
Sodium, total
Drinking Water Standards *
mg/1
-
0.05 -0.2
0.05
2
0.004
-
0.005
-
-
0.1
1.3
0.2
4
-
-
0.3
0.015
-
0.05
0.002
-
0.1
-
10
1
6.5 - 8.5
-
0.05
0.1
-
P/S
s
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
s
p
s
p
p
p
p
s
p
s
Health Advisory Levels * *
mg/1
-
-
0.002
2
0.0008
0.6
0.005
-
-
0.1
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.002
0.04
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
-
N/C
c
N
C
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Results mg/1
(dissolved basis)
91
0.14
0.002
<02
<02
0.13
0.067
667
40.9
0.02
1.10
2.24
1.71
91
1570
0.08
<.001
14.8
0.84
0.0006
0.26
1.75
19.9
37.8
0.10
8.15
34.4
0.006
0.026
738
September 30, 1999
35
-------
Table A-4. Complete Water Quality Data from Druid Mine Shaft
(Continued)
Constituent
Solids, dissolved
Sulfate, total
Zinc, recoverable
Drinking Water Standards *
mg/1
500
500/250
5
P/S
s
p/S
s
Health Advisory Levels * *
mg/1
-
-
2
N/C
N
Results mg/1
(dissolved basis)
4560
2080
1.56
Source: Stewart, 1993
* Drinking Water Standards: P= Primary; S= Secondary
** Health Advisory Levels: N= Noncancer Lifetime; C= Cancer Risk
-No standards or advisory levels available.
September 30, 1999
36
-------
ATTACHMENT B
STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS
This attachment does not describe every state's control program; instead it focuses on the six
states where relatively large numbers of special drainage wells are known to exist: Alaska, Florida,
Idaho, Indiana, Ohio, and Oregon. Altogether, these six states have a total of 1,916 documented
special drainage wells, which is approximately 99% of the documented well inventory for the nation.
With the exception of Florida, which explicitly addresses connector wells and swimming pool
drainage wells in its UIC regulations, the states that have special drainage wells do not have regulatory
provisions that address them directly. In several states, including Alaska, Idaho, and Oregon, special
drainage wells may fall under state regulations addressing wastewater disposal to ground water. If the
injectate meets primary treatment standards, however, the requirements may be less stringent. Thus,
potable water tank overflow wells are not likely to be subject to permitting requirements that might
apply to other special drainage well categories.
Alaska
USEPA Region 10 directly implements the UIC program for Class V injection wells in Alaska.
In addition, Chapter 72 of the Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) addresses wastewater disposal to
ground water.
Any person who disposes of domestic wastewater to ground water is required to obtain a
permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation. A permit is not required if the discharge is
less than 500 gpd or it goes to an approved soil absorption system, and the wastewater has received at
least primary treatment (18 AAC 072.10).
Florida
Florida is a UIC Primacy state for Class V wells. Chapter 62-528 of the Florida
Administrative Code (FAC), effective June 24, 1997, establishes the UIC program, and Part V (62-
528.600 to 62-528.900) addresses criteria and standards for Class V wells.
Class V wells are grouped for purposes of permitting into eight categories. The special
drainage wells fall into at least three of these categories. Connector wells are included in Group 2.
Construction dewatering wells have been permitted as storm water drainage wells (Group 6)
(Deuerling, 1999). Swimming pool drainage wells and other wells not described in the other Class V
groups, such as potable water overflow wells, are in Group 8. The regulatory requirements for these
three groups are described below, because they can be expected to include most special drainage wells
in the state.
September 30, 1999 37
-------
Permitting
Underground injection through a Class V well is prohibited, except as authorized by permit by
the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Owners and operators are required to obtain a
Construction/Clearance Permit before receiving permission to construct. The applicant is required to
submit detailed information, including well location and depth, description of the injection system and of
the proposed injectate, and any proposed pretreatment. When site-specific conditions indicate a threat
to a USDW, additional information must be submitted. In addition, all Class V wells are required to
obtain a plugging and abandonment permit.
In Florida, owners of swimming pool drainage wells at single-family residences are only
required to submit inventory information on their well (Deuerling, 1997). All other swimming pool
drainage wells are constructed and operated under a general permit for construction of swimming pool
drainage wells that are designed in accordance with the standards and criteria in Rule 62-528.605
FAC, provided that notice is provided to the DEP. The general permit is subject to the conditions in
Rule 62-4.540 FAC. The permittee or engineer of record must certify to the DEP that construction is
complete and done in accordance with plans submitted to the DEP. Such wells must satisfy the
conditions in Rule 62-528.630 (3) through (6), which provide that the well may not cause or allow
movement of fluid containing any contaminant into a USDW, and that the DEP may take actions to
address violations of primary drinking water standards or other threats to health from the well.
Florida treats their two types of dewatering wells, connector wells and construction dewatering
wells, as storm water wells. The applicant is required to provide information concerning known
contamination sites in the area. In addition, an individual permit is required to operate the well, and the
applicant must show that the injectate meets MCLs or will not be injected into a USDW. Most
connector wells in the state have been closed by Florida DEP and the agency is not issuing new permits
unless an applicant can demonstrate that injectate will meet MCLs at the point of injection (Cadmus,
1999). According to Florida DEP, no new connector wells are permitted, and old wells are terminated
and plugged as they are discovered (Richtar, 1999).
Well Construction Standards
Specific construction standards for Class V wells have not been enacted by Florida because of
the variety of Class V wells and their uses. Instead, the state requires the well to be designed and
constructed for its intended use and in accordance with good engineering practices. State staff approve
the well's design and construction through a permit. State staff can apply any of the criteria for Class I
wells to the permitting of Class V wells, if it determines that without such criteria the Class V well may
cause or allow fluids to migrate into a USDW and cause a violation of the state's primary or secondary
drinking water standards, which are contained in Chapter 62-550 of the FAC. However, if the
injectate meets the primary and secondary drinking water quality standards and the minimum criteria
contained in Rule 62-520-400 of the FAC, Class I injection well permitting standards will not be
required.
September 30, 1999 38
-------
Class V wells are required to be constructed so that their intended use does not violate the
water quality standards in Chapter 62-520 FAC at the point of discharge, provided that the drinking
water standards of 40 CFR Part 142 are met at the point of discharge.
Operating Requirements
All Class V wells are required to be used or operated in such a manner that they do not present
a hazard to USDWs. Domestic wastewater effluent must meet criteria established in specified rules of
the FAC. Pretreatment of injectate must be performed, if necessary, to ensure the fluid does not violate
the applicable water quality standards in 62-520 FAC.
Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring generally is required for Group 2 wells, including connector wells, unless the wells
inject fluids that: (1) meet the primary and secondary drinking water standards in 62-550 FAC and the
minimum criteria in Rule 62-520, and (2) have been processed through a permitted drinking water
treatment facility. Group 6 wells, which include construction dewatering wells, must be monitored if
injection occurs into a USDW. Monitoring is required for Group 8 wells, except swimming pool
drainage wells (62-528.615 (l)(a)2 and 3 FAC). Monitoring is not required for swimming pool
drainage wells that receive a general permit under Rules 62-528.710 FAC. Monitoring frequency is
addressed in the permit and is based on well location and the nature of the injectate.
Plugging and Abandonment
The owner or operator of any Class V well must apply for a plugging and abandonment permit
when the well is no longer used or usable for its intended purpose. Plugging must be performed by a
licensed water well contractor.
Idaho
Idaho is a UIC Primacy state for Class V wells. Idaho promulgated regulations for the UIC
control program in the Idaho Administrative Code (IDAPA), Title 3, Chapter 3. Deep injection wells
are defined as being more than 18 feet in vertical depth below the land surface (37.03.03.010.11
IDAPA). Wells are further classified, with Class V Subclass 5G30 defined as special drainage water
and 5X27 defined as "other wells" (37.03.03.01.k and bb IDAPA).
Permitting
Construction and use of shallow injection wells are authorized by rule, provided that inventory
information is provided and use of the well does not result in unreasonable contamination of a drinking
water source or cause a violation of water quality standards that would affect a beneficial use
(37.03.03.03.d IDAPA). Construction and use of Class V deep injection wells may be authorized by
September 30, 1999 39
-------
permit (37.03.03.03.c IDAPA). The regulations outline detailed specifications for the information that
must be supplied in a permit application (37.03.03.035 IDAPA).
Construction Requirements
In Idaho, where pump control valve discharge and potable water tank overflow wells are
located, the Director of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality may impose certain siting
restrictions on Class V wells. Specifically, the state may require permitted wells to locate a minimum
distance from any point of diversion for beneficial use that could be harmed by bacterial contaminants.
These siting requirements may be waived if the well owner/operator can demonstrate that any springs
or wells within a specified radius of the perched water zone will not be contaminated by the injection
well (Cadmus, 1999).
Operating Requirements
Standards for the quality of injected fluids and criteria for location and use are established for
rule authorized wells, as well as for wells requiring permits. The rules are based on two factors: (1) the
injected fluids must meet MCLs for drinking water for physical, chemical, and radiological contaminants
at the wellhead, and (2) ground water produced from adjacent points of diversion for beneficial use
must meet the water quality standards found in Idaho's "Water Quality Standards and Wastewater
Treatment Requirements," 16.01.02 IDAPA, administered by the Idaho Department of Health and
Welfare. If a well meets these two criteria, the aquifer will be protected from unreasonable
contamination. The state may, when it is deemed necessary, require specific injection wells to be
constructed and operated in compliance with additional requirements (37.03.03.050.01 IDAPA (Rule
50)). Rule-authorized wells "shall conform to the drinking water standards at the point of injection and
not cause any water quality standards to be violated at the point of beneficial use" (37.03.03.050.04.d.
IDAPA).
Monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting may be required if the state finds that the well may
adversely affect a drinking water source or is injecting a contaminant that could have an unacceptable
effect upon the quality of the ground waters of the state (37.03.03.055 IDAPA (Rule 55)).
Financial Responsibility
No financial responsibility requirement exists for rule authorized special drainage wells.
Permitted wells are required by the permit rule to demonstrate financial responsibility through a
performance bond or other appropriate means to abandon the injection well according to the conditions
of the permit (37.03.03.35.03.6 IDAPA).
Plugging and Abandonment
The Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) has prepared "General Guidelines for
Abandonment of Injection Wells," which are not included in the regulatory requirements. IDWR
September 30, 1999 40
-------
expects to approve the final abandonment procedure for each well. The General Guidelines
recommend the following:
• Pull the casing, if possible. If the casing is not pulled, cut it to a minimum of two feet below land
surface.
• Measure the total depth of the well.
• If the casing is left in place, perforate it and fill the hole by pressure grouting with neat cement
with up to 5% bentonite. As an alternative, when the casing is not pulled, use coarse bentonite
chips or pellets. If the well extends into the aquifer, run the chips or pellets over a screen to
prevent any dust from entering the hole. No dust is allowed to enter the bore hole because of
the potential for bridging. Perforation of the casing is not required under this alternative.
• If the well extends into the aquifer, fill the bore hole with a clean pit-run gravel or road mix to
up to 10 feet below the top of the saturated zone or 10 feet below the bottom of the casing,
whichever is deeper. Use cement grout or bentonite clay to surface. The use of gravel may not
be allowed if the lithology is undetermined or unsuitable.
• Place a cement cap at the top of the casing if it is not pulled, and place a minimum of two feet of
soil over the foiled hole/cap.
• An IDWR representative should witness abandonment of the well.
Indiana
USEPA Region 5 directly implements the UIC program for Class V injection wells in Indiana.
Class V owners and operators contact the USEPA Region 5 UIC Program directly to report inventory
or are referred to the USEPA Regional UIC program by state, city, or county personnel or consultants.
The USEPA Region retains all records regarding well location, injectate information, and regulatory
requirements. Generally, USEPA Region 5 authorizes all Class V wells by rule; however, they require
and have the authority to impose conditions which ensure that wells do not endanger USDWs.
Ohio
Ohio is a UIC Primacy state for Class V wells. Regulations establishing the underground
injection control program are found in Chapter 3745-34 of the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC).
Permitting
Class V injection well definitions do not explicitly address swimming pool drainage wells,
connector wells, potable water tank overflow wells, or other special drainage wells (3745-34-04
OAC). However, any underground injection, except as authorized by permit or rule, is prohibited.
The construction of any well required to have a permit is prohibited until the permit is issued (3745-34-
06 OAC).
September 30, 1999 41
-------
Injection into Class V injection wells is authorized by rule (3745-34-13 OAC). However, a
drilling and operating permit is required for injection into or above a USDW of sewage, industrial
wastes, or other wastes, as defined in § 6111.01 of the Ohio Revised Code, (3745-34-13 OAC and
3745-34-14 OAC).
Siting and Construction
There are no specific regulatory requirements for the siting and construction of wells permitted
by rule.
Operating Requirements
There are no specific operating or monitoring requirements for wells permitted by rule.
Oregon
Oregon is a UIC Primacy state for Class V wells. The UIC program is administered by the
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Under the state's Administrative Rules (OAR) pertaining
to underground injection, a "waste disposal well" is defined as any bored, drilled, driven, or dug hole,
whose depth is greater than its largest surface dimension, which is used or is intended to be used for
disposal of sewage, industrial, agricultural, or other wastes. The definition includes drain holes,
drywells, cesspools, and seepage pits, along with other underground injection wells (340-044-
0005(22) OAR). Construction and operation of a waste disposal well without a water pollution control
facility (WPCF) permit is prohibited. Certain categories of wells are prohibited entirely, including wells
used for underground injection activities that allow the movement of fluids into a USDW if such fluids
may cause a violation of any primary drinking water regulation or otherwise create a public health
hazard or have the potential to cause significant degradation of public waters.
Permitting
Any underground injection activity that may cause, or tend to cause, pollution of ground water
must be approved by the DEQ, in addition to any other permits or approvals required by other federal,
state, or local agencies (340-044-0055 OAR). Permits are not to be issued for construction,
maintenance, or use of waste disposal wells where any other treatment or disposal method that affords
better protection of public health or water resources is reasonably available or possible (340-044-0030
OAR). A waste disposal well, unless absolutely prohibited, must obtain a WPCF permit (340-044-
0035 OAR, 340-045-0015 OAR).
Siting and Construction
Permits for construction or use of waste disposal wells include minimum conditions relating to
their location, construction, and use (340-044-0035 OAR).
September 30, 1999 42
-------
Abandonment and Plugging
Upon discontinuance of use or abandonment, a waste disposal well is required to be rendered
completely inoperable by plugging and sealing the hole. All portions of the well that are surrounded by
"solid wall" formation must be plugged and filled with cement grout or concrete. The top portion of the
well must be effectively sealed with cement grout or concrete to a depth of at least 18 feet below land
surface. If this method of sealing is not effective, a manner approved by the DEQ must be used to seal
the well.
September 30, 1999 43
-------
REFERENCES
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 1991. American National Standard for Public
Swimming Pools. National Spa and Pool Institute. Alexandria, Virginia. ANSI/NSPI-1 1991.
ANSI. 1993a. Standard Guidelines for the Design of Urban Subsurface Drainage. American Society
of Civil Engineers. New York. ANSI/ASCE 12-92.
ANSI. 1993b. Standard Guidelines for Operation and Maintenance of Urban Subsurface Drainage.
New York. American Society of Civil Engineers. ANSI/ASCE 14-93.
ANSI. 1995. American National Standard for Residential Inground Swimming Pools. National Spa
and Pool Institute. Alexandria, Virginia. ANSI/NSPI-5 1995.
Bianco B. and D. A. Bruce. 1991. "Large Landslide Stabilization by Deep Drainage Wells" in Slope
Stability Engineering: Development and Applications Proceedings of the International Conference on
Slope Stability.
Bruce, D. A. 1992. "Two New Specialty Geotechnical Processes for Slope Stabilization" in Stability
and Performance of Slope and Embankments n Proceedings of a Specialty Conference: American
Society of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Engineering Division.
The Cadmus Group, 1999. State-by-State Notebooks Compiling Results from the Class V
Underground Injection Control Study. February 1, 1999.
Chlorine Chemistry Council. 1998. "Chlorine-100 Years of Safety."
http://www.c3.org/newsroom/brochures/pools.html (31 August 1998).
DiGiovanni, C. 1998. National Spa and Pool Institute. Telephone communication with Stephanie
Barrett, ICF Consulting. September 10, 1998.
Deuerling, R 1997. Memorandum from Rich Deuerling, Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation to Anhar Karimjee USEPA Office of Water. November 14, 1997.
Deuerling, R. 1999. Comments on Class V Study documents.
Eddy, R. E. 1996. Letter from Ronald E. Eddy, Sherman & Howard LLC to Mr. Ron Zdyb,
USEPA. Octobers, 1996.
Gabrielsen, M. A. 1987. Swimming Pools: A Guide to Their Planning, Design, and Operation. 4th
ed. Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc. Champaign, Illinois.
September 30, 1999 44
-------
Inglese, Jr., O. 1992. Best Management Practices for the Protection of Ground Water: A Local
Official's Guide to Managing Class V UIC Wells. Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection. Hartford, Connecticut. November 4, 1992.
Kimrey, J. O. and L. D. Fayard. 1984. Geohydrologic Reconnaissance of Drainage Wells in Florida.
Geological Survey, Water Resources Division. Tallahassee, Florida.
Kowalsky, L. 1998. National Swimming Pool Foundation. Telephone communication with Stephanie
Barrett, ICF Consulting. August 19, 1998.
Land, R. 1998. Memorandum from Russ Land, Nevada Underground Injection Control Program to
AnharKarimjee, USEP A Office of Water. February 17, 1998.
Pillsbury S. 1997. Memorandum from Sarah Pillsbury New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services to Anhar Karimjee, USEPA Office of Water. October 27, 1997.
Prestige Pools. "Water Balance." http://www.prestigepools.com/waterbalance/wbalance.htm (31
August 1998).
Rahn, P. H. 1997. "Ground Water." Engineering Geology: An Environmental Approach. 2nd ed.
PTR Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Randazzo, A. F. and D. S. Jones. 1997. "Hydrogeology of Florida." The Geology of Florida.
University Press of Florida. Gainesville, FL.
Raynor Pools, Inc. "Pool Maintenance." http://www.raynorpools.com/maint.html (31 August 1998).
Richtar, J. 1999. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tampa Office. Telephone
communication with Stephanie Barrett, ICF Consulting. August 3, 1999.
Stewart, M. 1993. Letter from Maxine Stewart, Solution Gold, Ltd. to Anne Marie Patrie, USEPA.
December 2, 1993.
USEPA. 1987. Report to Congress: Class V Injection Wells. Office of Water. Washington, D.C.
EPA570/9-87-006. September 1987.
Western and Pacific Resources Corporation. 1992. "Western & Pacific Resources Releases Results
of...." PR Newswire, Vancouver, British Columbia. October 29, 1992.
September 30, 1999 45
------- |